Engaging in the conversations that shape our government

This Sunday, the Daily Herald Opinion page will begin a two-week exercise that is becoming increasingly rare among newspapers: Endorsing political candidates.

There are understandable reasons that many outlets are choosing to end the practice of endorsements. They alienate some readers who do not agree with the paper’s decisions. They suggest some arrogant implication, however unintended, that the newspaper knows better than the voters. And they divert a huge quantity of time and other resources from other important activities.

Yet, there are also compelling reasons that some of us continue to persevere as long as we can.

Perhaps chief among them is the fundamental objective of all the newspaper’s expressions of opinion - the goal to be an active participant in community discussions and community affairs. Participants in an energetic democratic society don’t just observe the actions taking place around them; they also engage in discussions about them. They share points of view. They hope to influence their fellow citizens, and they remain open to being influenced by them.

Surely, selecting individuals for positions of authority over the management of our communities, our state and our nation deserves such attention and engagement.

It is our hope and conviction, of course, that most readers share this spirit, and even if they do not agree with us on every candidate or issue. And many, we know, appreciate factors about our opinions in general, as well as our political endorsements, that strengthen their thinking by challenging it.

Regarding endorsements in particular, many readers realize, as I often point out, that through our editors’ candidate interviews and research, we devote as much or more time and effort as they do to investigate candidates and issues, giving some weight to the recommendations we venture.

That is not to suggest that our decisions are more authoritative than those of, say, an environmental organization or a local mayor or a union or any other special interest group that issues endorsements. But they do deserve attention as much as any of these organizations and, unlike many of them, our recommendations also consider something broader than a parochial concern. Special interest endorsements are valuable, too, of course, but there is a distinct value in considering the views of an institution whose concern is not the promotion of a single cause but the advancement of a broader ideal, the concept of simple good government.

To that end, we at the Daily Herald evaluate candidates according to standards of conduct and background rather than according to political affiliation. We have long held that our political philosophy is one that tilts toward the conservative on economic policies and toward the progressive on social policies. But we often support candidates whose own policies may defy either of these descriptions.

For, our ultimate goal is to select candidates who know how to work effectively in a pluralistic society containing people of vastly diverse backgrounds, interests and attitudes toward government. A democracy with such leaders in place is one, in our view, that offers the greatest opportunity for success and happiness for the greatest number of people.

So, we go into the coming week with this ideal in mind. We know you won’t agree with us on every case. We think you will agree with us on some. Either way, we, of course, provide opportunities through our letters to the editor for you to react to the ideas we put forth.

This kind of engagement, we are confident, adds strength to the foundations of our self-government, and it’s why we persist in contributing to these critical conversations that ultimately shape our quality of life.

• Jim Slusher, jslusher@dailyherald.com, is managing editor for opinion at the Daily Herald. Follow him on Facebook at www.facebook.com/jim.slusher1 and on X at @JimSlusher. His new book “Conversations, community and the role of the local newspaper” is available at eckhartzpress.com.